On 02-09-19 15:14, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> * Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> [2019-09-02 13:21:36 +0200]:> >> On 01-09-19 18:08, Andrew Burgess wrote:>>> Make use of exec_has_index_section library function rather than>>> manually checking in the 'maintenance info sections' output. Should>>> make no difference to the test results, just makes the code easier to>>> read.>>>>>>> I agree that it's nicer to test this using a proc call. I just wonder>> whether we should move the removed code to the exec_has_index_section>> proc to handle the case that there's no readelf. Then again, that might>> be overkill, I'm not sure.> > Possibly, but other functions in lib/gdb.exp don't provide non-readelf> alternatives. Also, as readelf is in the same tree as GDB it feels> like it should be easy enough for any GDB developer to get access to> readelf.> > I'm inclined to leave things as I have them, but if you (or anyone> else) feels strongly I'm happy to update the patch, just let me know.
You've convinced me that it's overkill, thanks.
- Tom